If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This is an Interesting Perspective!

I found this an interesting take on the upcoming Presidential election and the Campaigner in Chief."

Landslide on the Horizon
Paul A. Rahe · 1 hour ago

When I read Nate Silver, Sean Trende, Charlie Cook, Jay Cost, and the others who make a profession of political prognostication, I pay close attention to their attempts to dissect the polling data and predict what is to come. But I also take everything that they say with a considerable grain of salt. You see, I lived through the 1980 election, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and I was struck at the time by the fact that next to no one among the political scientists who made a living out of studying presidential elections, communism in eastern Europe, and Sovietology saw any of these upheavals coming. Virtually all of them were caught flat-footed.

This is, in fact, what you would expect. They were all expert in the ordinary operations of a particular system, and within that framework they were pretty good at prognostication. But the apparent stability of the system had lured them into a species of false confidence – not unlike the false confidence that fairly often besets students of the stock market.

There were others, less expert in the particulars of these systems, who had a bit more distance and a bit more historical perspective and who saw it coming. The Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik wrote a prescient book entitled Can the Soviet Union Survive 1984? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn predicted communism’s imminent collapse, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan suspected that the Soviet Union would soon face a fatal crisis. They were aware that institutions and outlooks that are highly dysfunctional will eventually and unexpectedly dissolve.

In my opinion, none of the psephologists mentioned above has reflected on the degree to which the administrative entitlements state – envisaged by Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, instituted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and expanded by their successors – has entered a crisis, and none of them is sensitive to the manner in which Barack Obama, in his audacity, has unmasked that state’s tyrannical propensities and its bankruptcy. In consequence, none of these psephologists has reflected adequately on the significance of the emergence of the Tea-Party Movement, on the meaning of Scott Brown’s election and the particular context within which he was elected, on the election of Chris Christie as Governor of New Jersey and of Bob McDonnell as Governor of Virginia, and on the political earthquake that took place in November, 2010. That earthquake, which gave the Republicans a strength at the state and local level that they have not enjoyed since 1928, is a harbinger of what we will see this November.

Yes, Barack Obama is ahead in some polls. And, yes, it looks like a neck-and-neck race. But that is because the President is spending everything that he has right now in a desperate attempt to demonize Mitt Romney, and it is because Americans are not yet paying attention. Obama’s support is a mile wide and a quarter of an inch deep.

Of course, if Romney were a corpse as yet unburied on the model of Bob Dole and John McCain, he would lose. If you do not all that much care whether you win or not, you will lose. But Romney wants to win. He is a man of vigor, and he has a wonderful case to make. He is a turn-around artist, and this country desperately needs turning around. Barack Obama has no argument to make. He can only promise more of the same -- yet another stimulus and higher taxes on the investing class. All that Romney has to do if he wants to win is to make himself presentable, and that should not be hard. He is handsome, tolerably well-spoken, and accomplished. If, in the debates, he stands up to the President, he will seem the more presidential of the two – and that will do the trick, as it did in 1980.

The question that everyone will pose to himself on the first Tuesday in November is this: “Do I want four more years of this?” And Romney can drive it home: “Do you want four more years of massive unemployment? Do you want four more years of food stamps? Do you want to lose the job that you have? Do you want to be out of work when you get out of college? Or do you want to see this country get moving again? Barack Obama took his shot – the stimulus bill, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank. And where has it left us? With the most anemic recovery in the history of this country!”

Romney can go on to speak of Obamacare. He can point to the corruption that Barack Obama brought from Chicago to Washington. He need only mention Solyndra and sound the theme of crony capitalism. Romney can also point to the President’s systematic misuse of the executive power – to defraud the salaried employees of Delphi and the bondholders of General Motors and Chrysler, to gut the welfare reform passed by New Gingrich and adopted by Bill Clinton, to let school systems out of No Child Left Behind, to sick the IRS on political enemies, to force people into unions, to encourage voter fraud, to deprive Catholics and other Christians of the free exercise of their religion. The list is long.

When the American people pause to pay attention, they will not vote for four more years of misery, four more years of corruption, four more years of lawlessness, four more years of race-baiting, and they will certainly not vote to embrace Obamacare.

If Romney wants to win really, really big, there are three things that he needs to do. First, he needs to tie his argument for paring back the administrative entitlements state back to first principles – back to the origins and purpose of government – and he needs to assert the necessity to return to limited government. What I am saying here is that he needs to occupy the moral high ground, to defend free enterprise not only as efficient but as right and just, and to criticize "spreading the wealth around" and taking from Peter to pay Paul as shameful and unjust. Politics is ultimately about justice, and justice should be his theme.

Second, he needs to force Obama to make errors. To this end, he needs to get under the President’s skin. He did this to Newt Gingrich in Florida, and it worked like a charm. Obama is even vainer than Newt, and he cannot stand mockery. Moreover, he hates Romney with all the resentment that phony intellectuals ordinarily harbor for successful businessmen. The gentler the mockery in this case, the lighter the touch, the more devastating it will be. Romney’s theme should be that the poor fellow is just not up to the job and that he should be left free to spend all of his time doing what he really enjoys -- playing golf. The SuperPACs may be able to carry the ball on this.

Third, when the debates come, he should do a Newt Gingrich. When one of the pundits asks a really stupid question that is of interest only to the credentialed elite (and this is inevitable), he should disembowel the man, asking him how he could waste the time of the American people on a matter of this sort when we are on the verge of a second recession and millions are looking for work. In the debates, the trick is to show strength – and nothing shows strength like a dramatic gesture of this sort. He might even find an opportunity to do this to Obama himself. It would be a knock-out blow. At some point, Romney needs to set aside his natural caution and timidity and go for the jugular.

In the meantime, you should not be afraid. This is going to be fun, and our margin of victory is going to be large.

I don't know.
A few interesting names have been thrown out.
Petraues, Paul Ryan (a fiscal genius) and a few others.
If people think this through, pragmatically, Obama is gone.
BUT-----and a BIG BUTT, people's ideology trumps logic and common sense.
Look how many smart people on this site get warm tingly feelings up there legs at the mere mention of "The One!!"
Remember, with the secular progressives it's all about feelings!
Why even imperical data such as the weather is now about "feels like."
It's 94 degrees, but it "feels like" 102.

Ideology vs Pragmatism...as I have stated numerous times before, as evidenced by some if not most of the liberal participants here on the RTF, it isnt that they and their cohorts are for BHO, its more that they don't want the R's to win, didnt matter if we ran Mitt,Newt,Rick or Rick...the country is divided, and the difference may come down to which side can turn the heads of the undecided....

Let me ask this Q: is there anyone out there that hasnt made up their mind yet

All my Exes live in Texas

Originally Posted by lanse brown

A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

I don't know.
A few interesting names have been thrown out.
Petraues, Paul Ryan (a fiscal genius) and a few others.
If people think this through, pragmatically, Obama is gone.
BUT-----and a BIG BUTT, people's ideology trumps logic and common sense.
Look how many smart people on this site get warm tingly feelings up there legs at the mere mention of "The One!!"
Remember, with the secular progressives it's all about feelings!
Why even imperical data such as the weather is now about "feels like."
It's 94 degrees, but it "feels like" 102.

What do you think?

I think, having lived in this area for most of my life, when I walk out the door and it is 94 degrees, it feels like 94 degrees to me. I think that the VP will have little effect on many people's vote, but having said that, Palin cost McCain my vote in 2008. Whoever the VP pick is needs to be acceptable to the moderates in our society as the middle decides elections.

Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
(John Dewey)

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
(George Washington)

Is the VP important? Could be ... if Obama dropped Biden and picked up Hillary, that could bring him way up in the polls. I don't think Hillary is any different than Obama in most ways, but Hillary certainly has the ability to draw support. Could you even imagine 8 yrs of Hillary after 8 of Obama? If Hillary could stick it out through Willie's scandalous cavorting for so long, she could probably "eat her spinach" through 4 years of being Obama's second banana.

It could be a good thing for Romney to wait on picking his VP ... long enough for Obama to be at the point of no return WRT keeping Biden on his ticket. It's hard for me to imagine that Biden would ever be a POTUS candidate ... so would hate to see Obama drop him.

The poll indicated that the independents opinion was that Romney made them most uncomfortable WRT foreign policy knowledge. Not sure Ryan could help him there. Condi has too much baggage from the Bush administration. Petraeus could be a winner ... but there is little indication that he would accept the position.

I have noticed that the Ds have been beating up on Allen West. Wonder if they fear him?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Allen West was on Greta he was one of the names that had been thrown around for VP and your right the Dems are going after him like a pitbull, same stuff we have seen and continue to see. They keep saying the VP has to be ready to be Pres but Biden, Really? I think Mitts ads need to show more of Obama in 08 making promises he never kept and saying what kind of campaign Mccain was running against, him since its the exact same tactics Obama is now using.

I think Mitts ads need to show more of Obama in 08 making promises he never kept and saying what kind of campaign Mccain was running against, him since its the exact same tactics Obama is now using.

Saw a clip of an Ohio Obama campaign speech the other day, truly obfuscation of the facts. Said, "Romney wants you to pay $2000 a year so rich people pay less taxes." The only way that relates is that Congress is locked on the extension of the Bush tax cuts over the high-end not being cut. If this deadlock is not resolved, then EVERYbody gets a tax increase as the tax cuts automatically expire.

Truly, if there is an inequity in the tax rates, the place where a higher tax rate should kick in would/should be at a higher level than $250,000. IF it is at all pertinent, it should not kick in until at least $1 million. $250K is no longer "rich".

I have never earned as much as $250K, but it is easy to acknowledge that someone earning $250K is likely going to pay for their kids' college educations. It is not as likely that their kids will be getting benefits that lower income earners would get.

Although most Realtors® seem to support everything that the real estate lobby pushes, I don't. I absolutely agree that a mortgage deduction for a second home should NOT be a tax deduction. Those are "vacation" homes. I even believe that if you own a $6 million home, you probably don't need a mortgage deduction either. God knows if you earn enough to own a $6 million home, you probably have plenty of other tax "loopholes" that lower income earners do not have. The mortgage deduction for a primary residence is one of the few deductions of any significance that Joe Average has available to him.

The 2nd home mortgage deduction came about, to a large extent, to accommodate ... Congresscritters ... who split time between their home state & DC. If Congress was not a 30-year career, they could viably rent during their terms. And if they choose to buy, isn't that their problem, not the taxpayers'?

Why allow a deduction for a primary residence? We know that neighborhoods with a high percentage of owner-occupants fare better, generally, than rental neighborhoods. Owner-occupants take good care of their properties and care about the neighborhood's safety and schools. Renters have less personal interest in those things. But when you're in a $1 million home neighborhood, those factors don't come into play in the same way. So encouragement of home ownership with that tax credit for "the middle class" does not seem unreasonable to me. However, it also becomes unreasonable when mortgage loans are given to people whose financial track record makes them a poor risk.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

I also heard that the home interest deduction will be going away Obabma will do everything he can to hurt the middle class all the breaks are for the very poor no work requirment for welfare, free health care to the poor we will pay for it, 1 million illegals flooding the list goes on and on but this is what most Americans want at least the poor they are thrilled it doesnt get any better than Gov taking care of them.